Wednesday Evening Church

[Dan....]

In the ongoing discussion concerning celebrating Christmas, a discussion has evolved concerning whether or not it is lawful for the church to add a Christmas service (apart from the weekly Sabbath) and whether the attendance therein is mandatory for the Christian.

This discussion brings up a question in my mind concerning Wednesday evening church.

Many churches have a mandatory (i.e., they require all members to attend unless Providentially hindered) Wednesday evening church service.

Since becoming a Sabbatarian, I have come to see the attendance to the corporate gathering of the church on the Lord's Day as requisite to keeping the Sabbath holy.

Wednesday is not the Sabbath. Are churches that require attendance on Wednesdays (and/or any other day than the Lord's Day) binding the consciences of men without scriptural warrant?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Oh yeah, that christmas thread is gonna start alot of side discussions!

This is a good question, what if instead of a Church service it is bible studies in members homes?

[Edited on 26-11-2004 by houseparent]

 

[luvroftheWord]

Dan,

I believe that the fact that the church in Acts met together on more than one day of the week (Acts 2 says daily), that this means that the church is free to worship together on other days of the week besides the Sabbath, which is the only day the church is obligated to worship on. But as a freedom, it should be left up to individual churches to decide. If a person doesn't like the days a church chooses to worship and it bothers them that much, they might want to think about finding another church, unless they believe it is okay for them to miss a service at their church.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I think one of the problems is that the church has become rather lax with the use of terms like "church service".

The Confession lays out the elements of corporate Christian worship:

"The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:"

When the church got into the habit of divorcing the preaching of the Word from participation in the Lord's Supper in corporate worship, it because possible to have all sort of "off hour" events and call them "worship" or "church service".

How many churches that have a mid-week service also have the Lord's Supper on a regular basis at that meeting? Can you have a worship service when the Lord's Supper or Baptism is never observed?

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with "off hours" gathering of the church. But let's call them something more appropriate like "prayer meetings" or "bible studies" rarther than "worship services", or worse yet generic "church services".

Side question. Many congregation have a "less formal" time of "worship" on Sunday evenings. It has been my experience that many times in these services not only are not all the elements of worship present, but women are allowed a more prominent role, such as offering prayer or "interacting" with the teacher/preacher/lecturer. If the church has these "more informal" times on Sunday evening with the characteristics I've outlined, should they be considered mantatory services to be attended by all?

[Edited on 26-11-2004 by tcalbrecht]

 

[Dan....]

Craig and Paul,

Are these intraSabbatic (did I just make up a new word?)meetings obligatory on the members? Can the church lawfully bind the consciences of men by making them "mandatory" meetings?

Also, Is there a difference between the church meeting for worship and meeting together for a Bible Study or for (as Acts 2 says) "breaking bread (which I don't think necessarily implies the Lord's Supper)" ? Must we necessarily infer that when the church met from "house to house" that they we meeting for worship?

Tom,

I understand your point. Maybe the church should define what an "obligatory" worship service is, and what is simply a gathering for other reasons which may not be binding on all.

Many congregation have a "less formal" time of "worship" on Sunday evenings. It has been my experience that many times in these services not only are not all the elements of worship present, but women are allowed a more prominent role, such as offering prayer or "interacting" with the teacher/preacher/lecturer. If the church has these "more informal" times on Sunday evening with the characteristics I've outlined, should they be considered mantatory services to be attended by all?

The corporate assembling of the church for worship is requisite to the Lord's Day; hence, for us to neglect the gathering thereon (regarless of how many time they gather for worship) would be wrong.

If "women are allowed a more prominent role, such as offering prayer", this does not change the fact that they are gathering for worship on the Lord's Day and that we must attend; it only shows that they don't take the apostle's admonition seriously.

[Edited on 26-11-2004 by Dan....]

 

[luvroftheWord]

Dan,

I think if you went that route (that the meetings were not necessarily worship services), then you would be able to justify taking the Lord's Supper outside of worship as well, since the text says they were breaking bread.

Also, as I said in the Christmas thread, I believe if a church calls a service that you should attend. And again, if a person's conscience is bothered by this, then perhaps they should attend another church where there are no extra services.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Dan,

I think if you went that route (that the meetings were not necessarily worship services), then you would be able to justify taking the Lord's Supper outside of worship as well, since the text says they were breaking bread.

Also, as I said in the Christmas thread, I believe if a church calls a service that you should attend. And again, if a person's conscience is bothered by this, then perhaps they should attend another church where there are no extra services.

Other than because it is often cited, why would we assume that breaking bread was the Lord's Supper rather than meals, or an agape feast? If it we say it was the Supper, would we not also be required to have fellowship in our worship, since the believers not only continued in the apostles broke bread but "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42).

And does not this comment by Luke militate against a sacramental interpretation:

breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart

I guess finally, would this not be a unique case in the early Church, where it may be presumed that the Lord's Supper was administered differently, including not in corporate worship services, but rather at common meals? So we would have Supper but not worship (which quickly died out, by the time of 1 Corinthians).

 

[luvroftheWord]

Fred,

Fellowship is an aspect of worship. We are all members of one body.

Acts 2:46 also says, "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes..." They also attended the temple daily. Your point about the breaking of bread makes sense. But it still doesn't prove that we are not allowed to worship on other days besides the Sabbath.

Furthermore, the "well, it was the intertestamental period" or "that was a situation unique to the early church" arguments can be used to prove anything, since everything we have written in the New Testament was written during that time. Schwertley tries to argue this way when dealing with Romans 14, saying that once the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, the passage in Romans 14 ceased to be applicable to our current situation. The problem is that this is mere conjecture, and worse, there is no way to even prove that, since we have no Scripture telling us such.

[Edited on 26-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]

 

[Scott]

What is the relevance to faith or practice of the statement that the discplies "broke bread" if it does not refer to the Lord's Supper? Why did God inspire this detail to be written?

 

[luvroftheWord]

That was my thinking, Scott.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott
What is the relevance to faith or practice of the statement that the discplies "broke bread" if it does not refer to the Lord's Supper? Why did God inspire this detail to be written?

The same reason that innumerable details are included in Scripture. Because it is true, it happened and it helps us to understand. But that does not mean it has to be understood in that context, or even if so, that it was normative. If it is, then Wednesday is no big deal - we must be worshipping with the Lord's Supper every day - something that the Church has really never historically done.

[Edited on 11/29/2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[luvroftheWord]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott
What is the relevance to faith or practice of the statement that the discplies "broke bread" if it does not refer to the Lord's Supper? Why did God inspire this detail to be written?

The same reason that innumerable details are included in Scripture. Because it is true, it happened and it helps us to understand. But that does not mean it has to be understood in that context, or even if so, that it was normative. If it is, then Wednesday is no big deal - we must be worshipping with the Lord's Supper every day - something that the Church has really never historically done.

[Edited on 11/29/2004 by fredtgreco]

Actually, all it would mean is that we have freedom to worship on other days besides the Sabbath, not that we are required to do so, because you can't build universals from particulars.